NASIB MELAYU PASCA PILIHANRAYA 2008

Pengenalan
Tidak di nafikan bahawa Pilihanraya Malaysia 2008 adalah suatu perubahan atau aliran drastik pola perubahan kepimpinan negara.daripada di dominasikan oleh Barisan Nasional. Separuh daripada semenanjung Malaysia telah beralih kepada pakatan pembangkang. Dengan ujudnya budaya perubahan atau people power atau di kalangan india di kenali sebagai makkal sakti, maka element dan pengaruh politikus atau politik yang di pelopori oleh tokoh sebelum merdeka telah berubah. Perubahan ini pada konsep universal justice atau kehendak dan juga kesedaran universal yang di dorong kepada kerajaan yang lebih transparent dan telus, sebenarnya mungkin membawa kebaikan kepada rakyat Malaysia, tetapi sebagai rakyat malaysia peralihan ini di nantikan tetapi apakah nasib Melayu sebagai sebuah bangsa? Bangsa Melayu sepatutnya turut serta di dalam kehendak universal iaitu keadilan dan ketelusan pemimpin tetapi bukanlah dengan mengadaikan bangsa.

Dilema Melayu Sebagai Sebuah Bangsa Atau Ethnic Group
Melayu sebagai bangsa atau ethnic group yang dominant di Malaysia sepatutnya lebih matang di dalam membuat keputusan dan menentukan nasib dan hala tuju negara yang kita warisi ini. Tetapi realiti adalah berlainan. UMNO mungkin suatu masa dahulu di pelopori dan di dokong oleh golongan pemimpin yang berwawasan dan ikhlas di dalam perjuangan bangsa, tetapi di permulaan 1990 keikhlasan di dalam perjuangan telah muali lupus dan hilang. Di gantikan dengan majoriti Melayu yang rakus dan power hungry. Element atau budaya rasuah, kroni adalah sinonim dengan negara yang membangun, tetapi "check and balance" di dalam UMNO atau Bangsa Melayu itu sendiri gagal muncul. Badan disiplin atau golongan tua sepertimana "pendekar" atau Knight tidak lagi ada di dalam bangsa melayu itu sendiri. Ketandusan Pemimpin yang lantang atau mampu berjuang dengan ikhlas telah hilang, Budaya kipas mengipas dan juga budaya mengampu dan di berikan jawatan akan menghilangkan kelantangan perjuangan Melayu itu sendiri.
Siapakah harus di persalahkan? Pemimpin atau bangsa itu sendiri? Isu ini adalah sesuatu yang komplex dan sukar jika di lihat pada satu sudut. tetapi ianya akan menjadi mudah jika adanya pencetus and juga segelintir yang menjadi pemegang amanah bangsa Melayu itu sendiri. Element ini pada pendapat saya tidak wujud, antara dileman Bangsa Melayu yang paling ketara sekali adalah anatara nasionalis dan agama Islam itu sendiri. Melayu terbahagi kepada dua di dalam diri mereka, antara Agama dan juga Bangsa. Kedua-dua pemikiran ini menjadi satu faktor yang mana telah menjadi realiti dengan adanya PAS dan UMNO, Kedua dua pihak ini adalah Melayu tetapi suatu perjuangan dan landasan yang berlainan, setiap satu menjadi champion kepada pemikiran yang berlainan. Melayu yang beragama akan membawa "Islam" mengikut pemikiran mereka sendiri, Corak perjuangan Islam sendiri juga bermazhab dan juga bermasaalah mengikut susun ataur atau percaturan pemimpin mereka. Pada satu kumpulan yang lain, perjuangan Bangsa menjadi keutamaan tetapi Islam juga di jaga pada tempatnya. Jadi bagaimana kita kesudahanya? Adakah kita patut meninggalkan manifesto Bangsa dan berjuang mengikut Agama? Atau Kita mendokong Bangsa tanpa meninggalkan agama? Inilah dilema Bangsa Melayu sekarang ini. Jika kita melihat pada versi ketiga, muncullah Melayu Keadilan atau PKR. Melayu terbahagi kepada tiga? Mungkin tidak? Ada Melayu atas pagar atau melayu western, mereka ini menjadikan dileman Bangsa Melayu kepada 4 atau lebih pemikiran dan golongan.

Dilema Ekonomi Melayu
Sebut sahaja election 2008, riuh di kedai kopi pertembungan UMNO, PAS DAN PKR,tidak termasuk Melayu yang memasuki PPP dan pelbagai lagi? Ini adalah isu kepimpinan dan juga politik negara atau Makro yang bermula dengan mikro.Tetapi sedarkah kita bahawa jutaan Melayu ini bersembang di kedai kopi milik pendatang? atau naturalize citizent? Kita pergilah di mana mana bandar utama atau bandar kecil seluruh Malaysia, ya, Mamak Store atau Kedai Mamak ibarat cendawan tumbuh selepas hujan, mana cerok atau corner lot tidak di miliki atau di perniagakan oleh kumpulan atau interest group ini? Setiap saat secawan teh atau kopi menjadi hidangan jutaan Melayu? Kedai Runcit pula telah bertukat kepada kedai multinasional? sebut sahaja giant, tesco, carrefour dan pelbagai. Sebahagian besar adalah multinasioanl, belum lagi budaya Mac Donald atau KFC dan Coffee House. Inilah realiti atau gajah di depan mata tak nampak tapi kuman sebarang putrajaya nampak. Bilamana kita mempersoalkan isu ini, maka ada cendiakawan Melayu mempersoalkan ini isu business" atau perniagaan dan juga kemodenan, tetapi aliran kewangan menuju atau masuk kedalam kumpulan tertentu. Cubalah kita bayangkan Melayu merempat di negeri sendiri di dalam kemelut politik dan
kewangan. Setiap saat alairan kewangan Melayu pergi kepada kumpulan lain, Money is power! Adakah Melayu mempunyai kekutan kewangan ini? Tentu sekali tidak? Tetapi mungkin ada yang berdebat dengan mengatakan kita mempunyai bank kita sendiri dan juga dasar kita sendiri, Adakah ini betul dan tepat, Marilah kita membandingkan Melayu Melayu yang menguasai arena perbankan, Kenapa Melayu ini dengan kekuatan credit line" ini tak mampu membina empayar Mydin Store? Mamak Kedai atau Peruncitan benilai Global? Kenapa? Jawapannya adalah complacent atau lupa diri, bila mereka telah ada di atas, bermulalah permainan saham, take over dan trading yang menguntungkan mereka sendiri dan menjadikan mereka semakin kaya dan bernilai jutaan ringgit.

Dilema Remaja Melayu Dan Sektor Pekerjaan Melayu.
Ahli ekonomi mungkin menyelar dan akan mempertahankan tohmahan ini, tetapi cukuplah setakat ini, Gajah telah nampak di depan mata tapi tidak mahu di akui. Dilema ekonomi Melayu sepatutnya menjadi keutamaan semua yang lahir sebagai Melayu di bumi bertuah ini. Kita telah tiada Real Estate value, Bandar utama dan juga perniagaan telah di pegang oleh golongan lain dan pendatang atau foreign work force telah mengambil tempat tuan-tuan" (Business Lord) ini. Adakah anda sebagai Melayu tidak berasa apa-apa jika anda ke satu komplex membeli belah yang besar dan megah , tetapi, anak melayu menjadi cashier atau pemotong ayam?Buka sahaja Surat Khabar versi Bahasa Malaysia, berapa mukasurat sahaja di bekalkan untuk peluang pekerjaan Bumiputra? sikit bukan? Tetapi buka pula Suratkhabar Versi Enggeris atau English, sangat banyak bukan? Kenapa ini berlaku? sekiranya ini berlaku sesuai dengan arus pekerjaan abad 21 maka ianya bagus tetapi perhatikan benar benar. Mandarin or any other language required. Adakah ini adil? Tentu sekali tidak bukan? Dimanakah Equal Opportunities atau peluang kesamaan, Negara Amerika Syarikat mempunyai undang undang diskriminasi pekerjaan, sekiranya perlu untuk tidak mematuhi sesuatu undang undang maka mereka perlulah memohon kelepasan. Tetapi tidak di Malaysia. Anak Bangsa kita akhirnya sedang ke arah KeMandrin, kita perlu mengajar anak anak kita bahasa Cina untuk kompetitif di alam pekerjaan.

sumber: Blogger pilihan

AN EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE

It is already a cliché to remark that our time is one of tremendous breakthroughs, refer to new work in technology, nanotechnology, the genetics revolution, robotics, artificial intelligence, perhaps even the creation of new species, by accident or by design. It is also a cliché to note that education is becoming increasingly important. Anything predictable and rule-governed will be automated. Only those persons who are well and broadly and flexibly educated will be able to function productively in this new world. Around the world, education leads the list of public concerns. Today, we will speak about education of children and adolescents; issues of collegiate and professional education deserve separate treatment on another occasion. By background, a psychological researcher who has studied mind and brain with particular reference to learning and to education. I just mentioned the consensus today about the importance of education. There is not comparable agreement about WHAT education should be and HOW it should be achieved. I want to mention two dilemmas-both connected to the cognitive, the knowledge agenda of school.

What should be taught? What should be highlighted: facts, information? data? If so, which of the countless facts that exist? Subject matters and disciplines-if so, which ones? Which science, which history? Should we nurture creativity, critical thinking? If there is to be an additional focus, should it be arts, technology, a social focus, a moral focus? If you try to have all you would break the backs of students and teachers, even given a demanding elementary and secondary school curriculum. If knowledge doubles every year or two, we certainly cannot multiply the number of hours or teach twice as quickly. Some choice, some decisions about what can be omitted, is essential.

How should we teach? Even if we could agree on which emphases should be adopted, one must still determine whether to teach all subjects or all students the same way, or to individualize the curriculum for each student or groups of students. How much emphasis should there be on computers, distance education, various media? What should be the role of home, school, the media, or extra-curricular activities? How much responsibility should be placed on teachers, students, peers, parents, the wider community? Issues of pedagogy and instruction turn out to be as vexed as issues of curriculum and content.

I believe that the primary cognitive purpose of education for the young should be to help students understand the world around them--the physical world, the biological world, the social world, the world of personal experiences. This is best done by first training them in the three basic literacies (Reading, Writing, Calculation) -- nowadays we might add computing; and then introducing them to the major families of disciplines: science, which seeks the truths about the physical, social, and biological worlds, and which uses the powerful tools of mathematics; the study of art and nature, which tells us about the beauties of the natural and the manmade worlds and which give us the tools to produce objects that we ourselves cherish; and history and literature, which tell us about the human past, document the good and evil choices that humans have made and the consequences of these choices, and help us to determine what we ourselves should do when faced with dilemmas. In sum, the disciplines represent humanity's most determined efforts to learn and to understand what is true, beautiful and good, and by extension to spurn falsehood, to turn away from what is repulsive, and to avoid evil deeds. The capacity to think intelligently is very different from knowing lots of information. Such intelligent thinking, such understanding is likely to come about only if one has rounded, three-dimensional familiarity with a subject, so that one can probe it in many different ways. And here at last is where our multiple intelligences can make their contribution. If we are willing to spend time on a topic and probe it penetratingly, we do not have to approach it in just a single way (which is almost always through written texts or lectures). Instead we can learn about it in many different ways, using our multiple intelligences, and that concept or topic is much more likely to remain with us, embedded in our neural networks, and to be usable in flexible and innovative ways. In fact, I would guess that if you were asked to remember material from World history,you wouldn't remember long time-lines, but rather a few events. So, my recommendations can be stated simply. First obtain the literacies; then study in depth key topics in the major disciplines; approach those topics in many ways; and give youngsters many chances to master and many vehicles to exhibit their understandings. Let them use their knowledge of evolution to evaluate the discovery of a new set of dinosaur bones or the spreading of a computer virus, as seems to happen each new week, at least on my machine. Various tasks can be left for the university: a specialization in one or another discipline; work that is explicitly multi or interdisciplinary; and the mastery of facts that may be useful to know if you want to become an expert.

I turn, finally, to the question of how education may differ in the future. The widespread availability of powerful technologies will be a great boon. Students will be able to get much information on their own, often in vivid form. They will be able to encounter multiple representations of material, for example through hypertext linkages, surfing the world wide web, or experimenting in virtual reality. There will be waning demand for live presentations of "straight, canned lectures"--such as this one!--for such lectures can be recorded and accessed, if one wishes, on the Internet at any time in day or night. In the future, students and parents will expect to be able to interact with teachers, in person and via the Internet, including instructors and experts whom they have never met. (We teachers will get even less sleep than we do now!) There may well be more home schooling, and more mixed forms of schooling, with students doing more at home, more with parents, more with ad hoc or planned groups, with only certain kinds of activity occurring each day within a single building. Flexibility is likely to prevail at school, as it is beginning to prevail at the workplace, in both of our countries. I find these prospects exciting. The challenging of teaching young persons is going to increase in the years ahead. Not only will students be encountering spectacular demonstrations through technology; the world itself, in its technological facets, will continue to change at dizzying rates. We live during the first time in history when we human beings could destroy the world through nuclear weapons. We also live at the first time in history where--through genetic engineering or nanotechnology. We could create new toxins, or new forms of bioterror, which could destroy the planet. We also live at the first time in history where we will have machines that are at least as smart as we are in many ways; machines that can plan economies, wage diplomacy, alter politics, and, for all I know, manage our leisure life, our love life, the place and manner of our deaths, and rebirths, how and whether we will be remembered. There will be experiments in cloning organs or whole human beings, and there will be attempts to merge humans and robots, for example, through the implanting of silicon chips in our brains; some will even hope to achieve immortality in that way, by downloading the wet brains into a vast dry database. I will leave it to you to determine whether this prospect of indefinite lives more closely approximates a dream or a nightmare! I am not saying that these issues--what used to be the stuff of science-fiction--should dominate the curriculum of the school. I am saying something more radical. I am saying that they are already beginning to constitute the curriculum of life each day. Students won't have to learn in school about cloned organs and organisms or silicon implants in the hippocampus because they will see them on television or surf past them on the Internet, or hear them argued about around the dinner table at night or at the cybercafé around the corner. And so the tasks of educators will become dual and dually challenging: on one hand, to inculcate the traditional disciplines and ways of thinking as I have described them; and, on the other hand, to help students cope with and perhaps take an active role in deciding how to deal with these dazzling developments, which, as I say, are no longer restricted to the pages of science fiction.

Public vs. Private Education

Throughout the world, societies are rethinking the relationship between the world of education and the marketplace. As you probably know, there are many private initiatives in education. Some individuals would like to have all education choice determined by portable vouchers that pay for one's schooling, and these proponents may even look forward to the disappearance of public education as we know it. I believe that market control of education would be grave mistake. Public education has much to learn from business, and I for one appreciate the various kind of financial and advisory support that businesses can provide. However, the goal of business--to make a profit--is fundamentally at odds with the goal of education--to have an informed citizenry capable of independent analysis and decisions. Education is also an area of expertise and is becoming increasingly so; just as we should not entrust business people to make medical decisions, we should not allow business people to make educational decisions.

Multicultural issues

When a country consists primarily of a single culture, then the issues of cultural education are relatively simple. Citizens should come to understand the history, governance, art forms, and values of their particular culture. However, nowadays, two new issues arise. On the one hand, many countries such as us no longer have a dominant culture, but are exquisitely multicultural. On the other hand, we are all members of a global society and we all need to be prepared to deal with individuals from a diversity of backgrounds. It is important to learn about one's own background culture, but in my view that task that can only rarely be undertaken by a school system in a multicultural society. Cultural education is better left to afterschool or weekend options. While cultural education is an option, introduction to the global society is becoming a necessity. Unless students have some grasp of trends and realities around the globe, and some sense of how to deal with individuals from diverse backgrounds and often conflicting value systems, they will be ill-equipped to survive in the future.

Academic vs. Practical Training

In years past, most societies featured a fairly early tracking mechanism, where the most successful students took an academic curriculum and had the opportunity for higher education; while the rest either dropped out of school, worked in farms or factories, or entered a vocational track. Nowadays, it is considered suspect to advocate such a tracking system. After all, most vocations run the risk of being automated; and we are living in a "learning" or "knowledge society" where individuals must be familiar with symbolic or notational systems. Otherwise they will have little chance to benefit fully from the opportunities available in a technologically-sophisticated setting. However, it is also apparent that not all students want to continue in school beyond the age of 15 or 16, nor that this is necessarily the optimal place for them to spend half of their waking hours at that stage of their life. In many cases, they and the society would be much better off if they mastered a trade, did community service, became involved in an artistic troupe, or went to work in a developing country. We should not force all young people to pursue higher education before they reach the age of 20 but that we should extend the option to them throughout their lives. Just as students in all developed countries now have the opportunity for a free primary and secondary education, we should gradually extend this privilege to the tertiary level. In this country, universally-available university education should be the goal such as Open University. However, it should be up to the student when and even whether to pursue that option. With the explosion of learning opportunities (e.g., distance learning, on the job learning,) and with the proliferation of institutions that provide education (e.g., for-profit, corporate, the military), there is no reason for everyone to proceed along a single lockstep route from kindergarten through graduate school. I should add, finally, that we have probably had too sharp a division between academic and practical learning. Much academic learning can be enlivened and enhanced if it has a real life component, or even vivid multimedia facets. Recent Dutch experiments with project-based and theme-related curricula illustrate the power of education that activates the multiple intelligences of the learner. And by the same token, there is every reason to infuse on-the-job training with exposure to general concepts and principles that extend beyond the particular task that is being mastered. One advantage of a "multiple intelligences approach" to education is that it does not simply consist of a set of hurdles designed just to pick out those individuals with a blend of linguistic-logical intelligence--though I suspect that particular blend is well-represented today in this room!

Disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies

All of us have become aware that so much cutting edge work in the world is focussed on problems, not on disciplines; and that much of the best work combines a number of disciplines, whether it be the intersection of genetics and information science, cognitive science and neuroscience, economics and behavioral science, or arts and computers. Since postgraduate education needs to take an increasingly interdisciplinary stance, what implications might follow for precollegiate education? So what about efforts at interdisciplinary work before tertiary education? I think it is possible to lay the groundwork for interdisciplinary education in at least three ways: Among the young: Encourage wide reading (or even wide surfing of the web). This is the best route to cultural literacy. When young individuals pick up ideas informally on many topics approached from many angles, they accumulate a fount of knowledge which later serves them well;

During the middle school years: Feature complex problems which require considerations from a number of different disciplinary perspectives. For example, ask students to consider what would happen if the earth ran out of petroleum or if computers were "hacked" by organisms from outer space. Even when students are not fully versed in a discipline, it is instructive to realize that they will have to bring more than one perspective--and more than one intelligence--to bear on a solution.

In secondary school: Devote a fair amount of time to active efforts at synthesis across disciplines. Most students see secondary school as a series of unrelated topics, as they wander from one class or test to the next one on the schedule. This estrangement is not essential. Particularly if there is coordination among faculty, it is possible to approach some of the same topics (e.g., light, the Renaissance, patterns) from more than one disciplinary perspective. Then, if there are special weeks or classes devoted to efforts to bridging these perspectives, students can begin to gain a feeling for what genuine interdisciplinary work is like. Let me stress that, in offering these comments about public/private education, multicultural education, vocational training, and interdisciplinary education, putting forth my own views, even prejudices, I am not speaking as a disinterested expert. Indeed, one cannot even begin to think about such issues unless one puts forth one's own value system. The answers can be guided by findings from research but they can never be dictated solely by the results of scientific or social scientific research.

Two Crucial Values

In touching upon values, I want to emphasize the enduring importance of two values: the Assumption of Responsibility; and a Respect for Humanity. We encourage students to carry out work, but that work needs to be good in two ways: exemplary in quality but also responsible. More specifically, the work that we do as adults should take into account our responsibilities to five different spheres: to our own personal set of values; to other individuals around us (family, friends, colleagues/peers); to our profession/calling; to the institutions to which we belong; and to the wider world-- people whom we do not know, those who will live in the future, the health and survival of the planet. Attention to these responsibilities is important for any worker, be he or she a physician, physicist, physical therapist or fisherman. Such responsible education cannot be completed in the early years of life; but it must begin there. Adult years are far too late. And so parents and teachers must embody a sense of responsibility in their own lives and seek to nurture a comparable sense of responsibility in all young people. This is especially difficult to do in uncertain and turbulent times like these: when things are changing very quickly, market forces are very powerful, there are not equivalently potent counterforces, and our whole sense of time and space is being altered by technologies like the world wide web. Many people in my country and elsewhere are worried about the alienation that many young people experience--alienation from the world of school and, in some sad cases, alienation from the world at large. I lack the expertise to discuss this national and perhaps world-wide phenomenon. But I do know that we must help students to find meaning in daily life, to feel connected to other individuals and to their community--past, present, and future; and to feel responsible for the consequences of their actions. We must help them to achieve the state of flow--the balance between skills and challenges--which motivates individuals to return to a pursuit time and again. Plato understood this 2500 years ago when he stated, "Through education we need to help students find pleasure in what they have to learn." The second value is an appreciation of what is special about human beings. Human beings have done many terrible things but countless members of our species have done wonderful things as well: works of art, works of music, discoveries of science and technology, heroic acts of courage and sacrifice. Our youngsters must learn about these achievements, come to respect them, have time to reflect about them (and what it took to achieve them) and aspire some day to achieve anew in the same tradition…or perhaps even to found a new tradition. Learning about human heroism may be another clue to how to nurture youngsters who embody positive values. We should not be afraid to state our values; but of course it is far more important to embody them, to live them day in and day out. The scholarly disciplines are among the most remarkable of human achievements--and we must remember that they are much easier to destroy than to build up. Totalitarian societies first burn the books; then they humiliate the scholars; then they kill those who do not buckle under. As the events of the last century remind us, a Dark Age can always descend upon us. We should remember that one of the most magnificent of human inventions is the Invention of Education--no other species educates its young as do we. At this time of great change, we must remember the ancient value of education and preserve it--not just facts, data, information, but Knowledge, Understanding, Judgment, Wisdom. We must use the ancient arts and crafts of education to prepare youngsters for a world that natural evolution could not anticipate and which even we ourselves as conscious beings cannot fully envision either. In the past, we could be satisfied with an education that was based on the literacies; that surveyed the major disciplines; and that taught students about their own national culture. We must maintain these three foci, but we must add two more: preparation for interdisciplinary work and preparation for life in a global civilization. We must keep alive the important values of Responsibility and Humanity. The great French playwright Jean-Baptiste Molière once declared "We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we do not do." We must not shirk from the responsibility to prepare children and youth for a future which we can only glimpse-- as through a glass darkly. That is the challenge faced as never before by education today. Let us combine the best of physical, natural, and social science, with the most precious of human values. Let us do so on a Global Scale. Then and only then can we have an educational system that reflects the best facets of the human condition.

sumber asal:Howard Gardner, AN EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE:The Foundation of Science and Values

Happy Teachers Day

Children Learn What They Live

If a child lives with criticism,
He learns to condemn.

If a child lives with hostility,
He learns to fight.

If a child lives with ridicule,
He learns to be shy.

If a child lives with tolerance,
He learns to be patient .

If a child lives with encouragement,
He learns confidence.

If a child lives with praise,
He learns to appreciate.

If a child lives with fairness,
He learns justice.

If a child lives with security,
He learns to have faith.

If a child lives with approval,
He learns to like himself.

If a child lives with acceptance and friendship,
He learns to find love in the world.

Paradoks dan retorik dalam takrif kualiti..?
Apabila kita memperkatakan tentang kualiti sebenarnya kita bercakap tentang kecemerlangan kerja, ketinggian sumbangan dan kepentingan serta kesempurnaan sesuatu kerja yang dilakukan. Dari perspektif ‘Pengurusan Berkualiti,Tuhan merupakan penguasa dan berkuasa mengatur perjalanan hidup manusia, namun kedudukan manusia yang lebih mulia, lebih tinggi darjat dan berupaya maka manusia telah diberi tugas sebagai khalifah untuk mentadbir dan memakmurkan bumi. Lantas manusia menerima amanah untuk menjalankan tugas tersebut. Ini bermaksud manusia mempunyai keupayaan yang berkualiti untuk melaksanakan setiap perintah yang diberikan Tuhan dan keupayaan ini diperakukan oleh Tuhan. Lantaran untuk melaksanakan kesempurnaan dalam menjalankan tugas dan tanggungjawab ini mestilah bermula dengan keikhlasan melaksanakan tanggungjawab yang dipikul. Niat yang ikhlas merupakan pintu kepada keupayaan membawa perubahan dalam pekerjaan dan sebagai pekerja kita mesti sentiasa berfikir mencari jalan penambahbaikan dan keberkesanan kerja yang dilakukan. Semua ini mampu dilakukan jika pekerja berjaya membina keunggulan diri yang berkualiti. Keunggulan ini dapat diukur melalui:
i-Pemikiran yang berkualiti
ii-Sikap yang berkualiti.
iii-Tindakan yang berkualiti,
iv-Jiwa yang berkualiti
Keempat-empat elemen kualiti diri akan mampu menjana kebijaksanaan untuk merancang, menyusun atur, memimpin dan mengawal individu atau sekumpulan individu bagi mencapai apa-apa yang diinginkan atau apa-apa yang telah ditentukan bersama. Akhirnya proses membina kualiti diri akan mengarah kepada satu gagasan menyeluruh tentang hubungan manusia dan alam seluruhnya dengan Penciptanya yang akhirnya membentuk pula kepada matlamat membawa kemakmuran, kesejahteraan dan kesempurnaan hidup.
Pembinaan kualiti diri, kualiti kerja, kualiti pengurusan, kualiti jabatan bukanlah satu program semasa, berkala atau jangka pendek tetapi merupakan satu proses yang berterusan dan saling ubah-mengubah. Proses ini akan sentiasa diperbaik mengikut keperluan semasa dan matlamat organisasi. Oleh itu penjanaan kualiti mesti diterap dan diserap dalam pemikiran dan sanubari setiap pekerja. Akhirnya kita mampu berbudaya kualiti setelah terbina satu corak kehidupan bekerja yang sentiasa meletakkan kepentingan dan keperluan kualiti dalam setiap tindakan dan perancangan. Perancangan bersama-sama dalam membentuk budaya kerja yang sebegini perlukan kepada gabungan seluruh anggota organisasi. Tidak ada yang berkecuali. Ini penting kerana sumbangan setiap peringkat akan memastikan kejayaan yang lebih bermakna akan dapat dicapai. Tindakan bersama dalam setiap peringkat bermakna setiap pekerja akan melaksanakan tugas dan tanggungjawab bersama secara bersama-sama demi mencapai matlamat bersama yang telah ditetapkan. Kejayaan bersama akan menjadi kejayaan organisasi dan mesti pula diiktiraf dan dinikmati bersama-sama.
Kembali kepada kecemerlangan, ketinggian, kepentingan dan kesempurnaan kerja yang disebutkan tadi perlu diasaskan kepada konteks nilai yang berikut:
Kualiti dalam konteks nilai.
Kualiti nilai merujuk kepada perlakuan manusia yang dihubungkan dengan aspek kesedaran Ketuhanan iaitu melakukan sesuatu pekerjaan dengan kesedaran bahawa Tuhan memerhatikan segala perlakuan manusia sama ada secara tersembunyi atau terang-terangan. Keyakinan yang tertanam kukuh akan dapat memastikan tidak berlaku sebarang penyelewengan dalam apa jua bentuk dan akhirnya kita dapat mengembalikan hak masyarakat melalui sumbangan dan peranan yang kita laksanakan. Kekuatan nilai ini akan mampu meletakkan organisasi kita sebagai organisasi yang diperakui keesahan dalam melaksanakan tugas.
Kualiti dalam konteks perbuatan.
Kualiti perbuatan merujuk kepada 'do first time right' atau 'do the right thing for the right time'. Kelaziman melakukan sesuatu kerja dengan terbaik atau sempurna akan memastikan tidak ada kecairan masa, tenaga dan wang yang dilakukan. Kesempurnaan melakukan tanggungjawab dan tugasan yang diamanahkan akan menjadi sumber utama penilaian masyarakat akan peranan organisasi kita. Memang diakui bahawa manusia tidak sempurna, namun ketirisan yang berlaku itu dapat diatasi melalui kerja pasukan yang mantap. Sikap saling membantu ini akan mampu menutup sebarang kesilapan luar jangka yang mungkin akan berlaku. Kemantapan inilah akhirnya menghasilkan kerja yang berkualiti dan mendapat hasil kerja yang berkualiti.
Kualiti dalam konteks manfaat
Kualiti manfaat merupakan tingkat akhir yang perlu diberi perhatian. Nilai yang di amal, perbuatan yang dilakukan akhirnya memberikan manfaat menyeluruh kepada diri sendiri, keluarga, masyarakat dan negara. Tidak wujud sama-sekali manfaat yang sia-sia jika sekiranya manfaat menyeluruh ini difikirkan sebelum melaksanakan sesuatu agenda. Manfaat diri seperti kepuasan rohani kerana kejayaan melakukan tugas, manfaat keluarga seperti kejayaan anak-anak kerana kita memberikan rezeki yang halal, manfaat masyarakat seperti berlakunya anjakan sikap kerana kita berjaya mengubah sesuatu keadaan dan manfaat negara seperti mencapai pendidikan mencapai taraf dunia apabila kita berjaya melaksanakan sesuatu dasar. Manfaat yang berpanjangan ini akan memberikan kita rahmat dalam hidup dan selepas hidup. Kualiti dalam manfaat akhirnya memastikan kesejahteraan dan keharmonian hidup dapat dilangsungkan secara adil dan saksama.
Memaknakan kualiti dalam hidup dan kerja harian kita bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah. Tidak semudah yang diperkatakan. Namun apakah kita harus mengalah dengan kesongsangan tanggapan terhadap kualiti yang perlu kita jana setiap hari? Persoalan ini hanya akan mampu dijawab jika kita menjadikan jiwa kualiti itu hidup dalam diri dan menjadi sebahagian daripada kehidupan kita.
Walau bagaimana pun takrif atau definisi kualiti masih bersifat subjektif. Ini adalah kerana kualiti diukur berasaskan nilai. Nilai yang menjadi mekanisme pengukuran kualiti inilah selalunya terdedah kepada eksploitasi dan manipulasi secara arbitrari.
Apa yang jelas isu-isu ketidakcekapan, ketiadaaan manual dan amalan operasi, masalah rasuah, akhlak kerja yang lemah dan sebagainya merupakan unsur yang sering diutarakan apabila membincangkan tentang kualiti. Sebenarnya, kepentingan kualiti dan mutu kerja yang baik telah wujud dalam pandangan hidup Islam sejak berabad lamanya. Seperti pemikir Barat, pandangan hidup Islam turut mengakui kepentingan mutu dalam semua kegiatan harian manusia. Cuma apa yang membezakan antara keduanya ialah dari sudut bagaimana ia digunapakai. Faham Barat hanya mengaitkan mutu dari sudut kebendaan semata-mata. Akan tetapi pandangan hidup Islam melihatnya dari sudut yang lebih luas di mana ia merangkumi sudut kebendaan dan kerohanian.
Tetapi berapa ramai di antara kita sedar bahawa unsur mutu dan piawaian ini ada dalam setiap suruhan Allah s.w.t. Ibadat solat, puasa, haji dan sebagainya perlu dilaksanakan berdasarkan syarat-syarat dan keperluan-keperluan yang tertentu. Kegagalan untuk mematuhi syarat-syarat yang ditetapkan akan hanya mensia-siakan amalan yang dilakukan.
Hakikatnya kita gagal untuk memahami falsafah yang terkandung dalam setiap suruhan agama untuk urusan harian kita yang lain. Maka wujudlah satu ketidakseimbangan yang menyebabkan agama Islam dilihat sebagai satu agama yang hanya mementingkan upacara-upacara yang berbentuk kerohanian semata-mata. Manakala umat Islam pula dari segi urusan keduniaan dilihat sebagai satu umat yang mundur dan terkebelakang dalam segala segi kehidupan baik dalam bidang ekonomi, pendidikan, kemasyarakatan dan sebagainya.
Dalam pandangan hidup Islam, semua kegiatan adalah ibadat. Dalam hal ini, pandangan ini boleh digunapakai dalam bidang-bidang ekonomi, pengurusan, pendidikan dan sebagainya. Oleh yang demikian, sesiapa yang bekerja bersungguh-sungguh dan penuh ketekunan sehingga ia mampu menghasilkan sesuatu yang bermutu dan bermanfaat kepada masyarakat umum, maka ia sebenarnya telah menyumbang kepada kebaikan ummah dan akan diberi ganjaran yang sewajarnya oleh Allah s.w.t.

Reading, Thinking and Knowing
Dr. Mohd Zaidi b. Ismail
Fellow Kanan

No one would dare dispute the central role of reading and thinking in nurturing a scientific culture which is conducive to the development of a nation.
Though their roles are indisputable, people at large still need to be reminded of their importance because of the inherent tendency in man to forget and neglect.
On Sept 13, speaking at the Centennial Celebration Dinner of the MPH Group in Petaling Jaya, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd. Najib Abdul Razak, urged Malaysians to embrace reading as part of their lifestyle to become a truly knowledge-based society. Once reading becomes part of one's life and forms a natural habit, the acquisition of knowledge becomes easy, he further remarked.
About two weeks earlier, while launching the Tan Sri Dr Noordin Sopiee Chair on Global Studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi highlighted that universities should not merely be mills churning out human resources necessary for the country but, more importantly, they should create thinkers who can analyse various issues, big and small, across geographical borders and academic disciplines.
One theme appears central in such reminders. That is, the relation of reading and thinking to knowledge. So, the discourse somehow boils down to that concerning knowledge and the culture of learning.
In this context, the writings of Wan Mohd Nor b. Wan Daud, Penjelasan Budaya Ilmu (An Elucidation of the Scientific Culture), is as relevant to us today as it was when it first saw the light of the day about 15 years ago (Since then, it has undergone four reprints).
Yes, reading and thinking are rendered meaningful only in the context of knowledge and knowing. One cannot enjoin them without, at least, alluding to their instrumentality in the process of the acquisition of knowledge, regardless of the kind of knowledge involved.
Suppose that knowledge were not well-appreciated in a society, will reading and thinking be valued therein as well?
Suppose that knowledge is confused with information, or is considered to be synonymous, will thinking then be as important as reading, if not more?
For Muslims, thinking is part of their religious duties. In fact, it is inconceivable that somebody be referred to as a true Muslim without him even thinking correctly.
One simply has to heed the famous dictum "There is no religion for one who has not intelligence (and therefore, reason)" (La diina li man la `aqla lahu).
As such, in addition to the factor of puberty, one only starts to be held responsible in terms of religion when one is possessed of a minimal discriminatory faculty (al-mumayyiz). And this faculty is described by Muslim scholars in basic logical terms: one's ability to discern the difference between what is necessary, what is impossible, and what is possible.
It has therefore become an established norm in the Islamic intellectual tradition for scholars to begin their treatises on theology and other religious creeds with elaborate epistemological preliminaries.
It is in those preludes on the theory of knowledge where one finds, among others, extensive discussions on knowledge and thinking. Thinking, though only one of the many channels through which knowledge is attained, is an important means.
What is this act called "knowing" then? It is not a bodily act although its acquisition process may involve certain usages or functions of our bodily organs. On the contrary, it is considered a mental act, an act of one's mind. But an act of what?
One good account given to explain what the mental act of "knowing" is, is its description in kinetic terms. Knowing is thus described as the mind's movement from "what-has-already-been-known" to "what-is-still-unknown."
Such, in fact, is not merely a description but also serves as a guiding epistemic principle. For, in knowing, one cannot start from either what is unclear or what one is ignorant of, using it to grasp what is clear and understandable.
It is in this light that "thinking" is described as "the mental act of (1) putting into a meaningful order (2) what one has already known in order to (3) attain what one is still ignorant of." It is indeed a brief description; yet, it is comprehensive.
Those well-exposed to the science of thinking in the Islamic intellectual milieu, the science called `ilm al-mantiq, would not fail to notice the three central and constitutive elements embedded in such a description.
One constituent is the units of knowledge already in one's possession; what one has already known. This, in the descriptive and explanatory language of Muslim scientists and logicians, is regarded as the "material," or "matter," of thinking.
Another constituent is the way one mentally organizes those units of knowledge; the way one mentally relates one unit with another unit, or a group of other units of knowledge meaningfully. It is as if one here is talking about certain mental patterns, certain arrangements. Thus, this second constituent of thinking is considered to be the "form" of thinking.
The third constituent represents the noetic progress, the successful movement of one's mind to new units of knowledge (such as deriving right conclusions or making correct inferences) after the first and second constituents above have been obtained. This progress seems necessary once one's mind knows certain facts and manages to relate those facts correctly.
In short, thinking is like one putting the right form to the right material so that at last one will arrive at meaning. As such, defects in thinking may well be due to the defects in its material, or to those in its form, or to flaws in both.
As far as reading is concerned, it is one way to supply man with thinking materials. It is here that misinformation, or wrong inputs, lead to wrong inference, and worse still, fatal decision-making.
If one is stuck only with the informations thus supplied from one's readings, or at best, is only able to regain what one has gathered earlier from one's readings, with no progress made in understanding, then one is not thinking, but is simply recollecting or memorizing or remembering.
Yet, quality reading as well as correct thinking are two undeniable components in inculcating the culture of knowledge and science in our society. And every party in this country must be serious about reading and thinking if we are serious about becoming a truly knowledge-based society.

Tragedi Pemikiran Melayu

Oleh: Profesor Diraja Ungku Aziz

Kalau ditanya tentang minda orang Melayu kepada saya, saya rasa Melayu tidak sanggup berubah. Perspektif mereka terhad, tidak suka menyiasat dan mereka tidak mahu berfikir dengan mendalam. Kalau kita tengok orang Melayu dalam cerita hikayat, Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai misalnya, ia cukup menarik. Kita dapat menggambarkan bagaimana ekonominya dan strategi orang Melayu memerintah untuk berdepan dengan Majapahit. Berdasarkan hikayat itu dan tradisi pantun Melayu, kita dapati orang Melayu ini mempunyai minda yang canggih. Tetapi yang jadi tragedi ialah orang Melayu tidak nampak ini semua kerana tiga pengaruh besar. Pertama, dalam tahun 1920-an dan 1930-an, pihak penjajah British menolak apa yang datang daripada Melayu, termasuk pantun, sebagai folk art, menjadikan apa yang dihasilkan oleh Melayu sebagai second class. Ketika itu, Melayu yang berharap untuk naik pangkat dan dapat kerja dengan kerajaan penjajah terpaksa ikut teori penjajah Inggeris. Ini semua membawa orang Melayu kepada perspektif jati diri yang salah. Itu pengaruh penjajah. Pada zaman ini, saya melihat sungguhpun banyak pemimpin Melayu bercakap tentang sains dan teknologi, orang Melayu pada umumnya tidak dapat menangkap pandangan itu. Di Eropah, sejak zaman renaissance, mereka telah mempelajari kemajuan sains dengan pendekatan yang berbeza dengan Islam. Mereka sentiasa bertanya. Malangnya, di Malaysia, dari bangku sekolah kita tidak galakkan budak-budak bertanya. Sampailah mereka di universiti, kita tidak galakkan mereka bertanya: Kenapa? Di negara kita, pelajar tidak berani bertanya dan guru-guru pula tidak tahu menjawab. Budaya ini menunjukkan tidak wujudnya inquiry mind dalam masyarakat Melayu. Kita tidak ada sikap saintifik. Sikap negatif inilah yang menyebabkan berleluasanya cerita orang kena tipu dengan bomoh. Yang saya hairan, graduan-graduan universiti pun kena tipu dengan bomoh. Kalau pada kurun ke-18, terutama di England, orang selalu bertanya: Kalau betul ada hantu, mana hantu? Kita hendak pergi ke tempat hantu, kita nak pergi tengok hantu untuk lihat apa manifestasi hantu. Pendekatan berani bertanya ini adalah sikap masyarakat dan tamadun yang berasaskan sains. Malangnya, kita tidak sedia dan berani bertanya, yang akhirnya menyebabkan kita tidak berani menghadapi cabaran. Pemikiran Melayu ini sebahagiannya adalah sisa-sisa pengaruh penjajahan British. Ini bukan rahsia lagi. Kita boleh membaca dokumen-dokumen itu di London. Menurut para pegawai Inggeris, orang Melayu ini kalau diberi terlalu banyak pendidikan dan kalau diajar ilmu sains, kelak mereka akan jadi seperti orang India di India. Mereka akan berdemonstrasi dan hendakkan kebebasan. Jadi ajarlah dia cerita Pak Pandir sahaja, itu sikit, ini sikit. Orang Melayu tidak suka sains, dia suka agama, jadi ajarlah tentang agama. Dia suka dengan raja dia, ajar Melayu buat bakul. Akibat dasar itu, tidak ada trouble makers. Trouble makers Melayu hanya timbul selepas Perang Dunia Kedua setelah kemasukan Jepun. Telah ada banyak buku yang membincangkan tentang subjek bagaimana British berjaya mengamalkan dasar yang mengongkong minda Melayu. Itu semasa penjajahan. Selepas kita merdeka, minda orang Melayu masih terkongkong kerana semua orang Melayu kemudiannya gila hendak kuasa dan hendak jadi kaya. Ini adalah teori saya mengapa minda Melayu tidak berubah. Saya bertanggungjawab tentang pandangan ini. Selepas merdeka, sesetengah orang Melayu yang ada kuasa, dia rasa dia boleh memerintah Malaysia sama bagus macam penjajah British. Minda Melayu ini sentiasa ada sesuatu yang membendung dan mempengaruhi - daripada kesan-kesan kolonialisasi pada tahun-tahun 1930-an, pengaruh Indonesia yang tidak sesuai di sini pada tahun 1940-an dan 1950-an, kesan media massa, dan kemudiannya budaya wang dalam masyarakat Melayu pada dekad-dekad terakhir ini. Sekarang ini semua orang Melayu hendak kaya. Sebagai seorang pendidik universiti, saya percaya (tetapi saya tidak ada buktinya) kalau orang mendapat pendidikan, mereka akan lebih bebas dan berubah. Contohnya pada akhir tahun 1970-an. Ketika Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad menjadi Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri, Malaysia ketika itu dapat menarik banyak modal asing untuk membuka kilang mikrocip. Kita dapat mewujudkan peluang pekerjaan kepada beratus-ratus ribu orang terutamanya untuk wanita. Wanita Melayu yang bekerja kilang ketika itu, akhbar-akhbar gelar mereka ini sebagai minah karan. Orang Melayu hina wanita Melayu yang bekerja kilang. Kenapa budak-budak perempuan Melayu ini mahu tinggalkan rumah di Kelantan, tinggalkan kampung di Johor untuk pergi bekerja kilang di Pulau Pinang, Selangor dan Melaka? Mereka sanggup kerana mereka telah belajar sampai ke peringkat sekolah menengah. Jadi program kerajaan membuka sekolah-sekolah menengah pada tahun 1960-an dan 1970-an, walaupun tidak ada rancangan khusus, ia telah membebaskan pemikiran budak-budak perempuan Melayu. Waktu itu terdapat beribu-ribu remaja wanita Melayu pergi bekerja di kilang-kilang. Dalam penyelidikan saya pada tahun 1970-an, dalam soal selidik saya bertanya mereka, bila hendak kahwin? Di kampung, dulunya mereka ini berumah tangga pada usia muda. Umur 18 dan 19 tahun sudah kahwin atau dikahwinkan, tetapi akhirnya bercerai juga. Oleh kerana pendidikan dan faktor pendedahan kepada karier baru, wanita Melayu itu sudah ada idea tidak mahu kahwin cepat-cepat. Mereka hendak bekerja terlebih dahulu dan menyimpan duit. Kita tanya lagi, kalau sudah kahwin hendak anak cepat atau lambat? Mereka kata lambat. Mereka hendak tangguh dapat anak sebab mereka hendak enjoy hidup berkahwin dan mewujudkan rumahtangga yang lengkap terlebih dahulu. Kata mereka, kalau dapat anak susahlah. Dalam sekelip mata, wanita Melayu berubah sikap. Ini semua tidak diprogramkan oleh kerajaan. Ia jadi begitu sahaja. Tetapi masyarakat Melayu tidak faham keuntungan perubahan minda wanita ini terutama di kalangan kumpulan berfikiran konservatif. Hari ini di Malaysia, trend semasa ialah wanita menguasai 65 peratus tempat belajar di universiti-universiti. Dalam sektor kerajaan, banyak wanita yang memegang jawatan tinggi. Trend ini pasti mengubah masyarakat Melayu secara pesat, sebagaimana ia mengubah pemikiran wanita Melayu pada tahun 1970-an. Ini semua adalah hasil daripada perubahan sikap yang tidak dirancang tapi terjadi. Perubahan minda itu berlaku secara tidak sengaja. Kadang-kadang kalau nasib kita baik, hasil perubahan yang tidak dirancang itu juga progresif seperti dalam kes perubahan minda wanita Melayu. Bagaimanapun, kadang-kadang perubahan yang dirancang tidak terjadi kerana orang yang hendak melaksanakannya pun tidak jujur selain terdapat pengaruh lain yang menghalang seperti pengaruh politik tempatan, politik antarabangsa, Indonesia, peranan orang agama yang menimbulkan nilai-nilai sama ada seseorang dapat pergi syurga atau tidak. Minda Melayu tidak dapat memikul ini semua. Kerana ada sesuatu dalam budaya mereka yang masih tidak diubah, mereka sanggup duduk di kedai kopi main dam. Contohnya orang lelaki di Kelantan dan Terengganu. Kalau mereka tidak main dam, mereka akan bincang untuk gasak kerajaan. Semua salah, dia sahaja yang betul. Titik perubahan kepada minda Melayu ialah tragedi 13 Mei 1969, tetapi peristiwa tersebut dan dasar-dasar ekonomi, pendidikan dan politik selepas itu tidak sepenuhnya menukar sikap orang Melayu. Ada beberapa faktor lain yang menghalang iaitu pengaruh Barat, peranan media massa, politik serta agama. Kita memang berubah sedikit dari segi lahiriah tetapi saya tidak fikir orang Melayu kini berada pada kedudukan yang lebih baik. Kita sudah terjangkit apa yang bekas Perdana Menteri British, Margaret Thatcher hendak dulu, dan fahaman ini cukup besar sama ada di kalangan pemimpin Melayu dalam UMNO mahupun PAS, dan juga di kalangan para pegawai kerajaan. Kita hendak menjadi apa yang Thatcher kata a nation of shopkeepers. Kita tidak mahu kata shopkeepers, kita gunakan istilah usahawan. Orang berfikir kalau sebahagian besar orang Melayu jadi usahawan, maka ekonomi orang Melayu akan naik. Ini saya rasa salah. Pendekatan untuk membangunkan orang Melayu dengan wang ringgit dan kebendaan ini tidak betul. Tesisnya silap.Tetapi itulah minda Melayu sekarang. Akhirnya saya lihat orang Melayu kini sudah kurang komitmen terhadap bangsanya sendiri. Sudah tidak ada kesedaran bahawa aku orang Melayu, aku mesti berkhidmat kepada orang Melayu, untuk membangunkan orang Melayu.